Notice for the OJ

 

Action brought on 19 June 2003 by Fédération Nationale de la Coopération Bétail et Viande (FNCBV) against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-217/03)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 19 June 2003 by the Fédération Nationale de la Coopération Bétail et Viande, (National Cooperative Association for Livestock and Meat) established in Paris, represented by Robert Collin and Michel Ponsard, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(annul Decision C.38.179/F3 of 2 April 2003 in so far as it affects the applicant;

(alternatively quash the fine imposed by that decision;

(in the further alternative reduce it;

(order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its contested decision, the Commission imposed on the applicant and five other French associations of producers and slaughterers a fine based on alleged infringements of Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty, in respect of an agreement to suspend beef imports to France and to fix a minimum price for certain categories of animals.

In support of its action the applicant relies on the following grounds:

In respect of its claims for the annulment of the contested decision:

(alleged infringements of procedural rules, more particularly alleged infringement of the rights of the defence, by reason of the alleged failure to provide reasons in the statement of objections, and alleged infringement of essential procedural requirements owing to the alleged insufficiency of the reasoning of the decision on not exceeding the ceiling of 10% of turnover in determining the amount of the fine;

(manifest errors of appraisal and law concerning the existence and the characterisation of the agreement covered by the contested decision and its effect on competition;

(alleged infringement of Regulation 26/62 ¹ in that the Commission should have granted the derogation provided for by Article 2 of that regulation;

(alleged infringement of Article 15(2) of Regulation 17/62 ² in that the Commission has given no information on the turnover used in determining the fines and has not checked whether the amount of the fine was within the limit of 10% of turnover.

In respect of its claims for the reduction of the amount of the fine imposed, the applicant relies on the following grounds:

(alleged infringement of Point 5(b) of the guidelines for determining the amount of the fine, ³ in relation to the calculation of the amount of the fine;

(alleged manifest errors of appraisal and law concerning the characterisation of the infringement as "very serious" and of the agreement as "secret", the alleged failure to take account of extenuating circumstances (lack of effect on the market, cessation of the infringement as soon as the Commission intervened, the applicant's exclusively passive role in the making of the agreement), and the determination as to the duration of the agreement;

(alleged infringement of Article 15(2) of Regulation 17/62 concerning the fixing of the amount of the fine;

(alleged infringement of the principle that penalties should not be cumulative.

____________

¹ - (OJ, English Special Edition 1959-162 (II), p. 20.

² - (OJ, English Special Edition 1959-1962 (I), p. 87. Amended on the last occasion by Regulation (EC) No 1216/1999 (OJ 1999 L 148, p. 5).

³ - (Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 etc., (OJ 1998 C 9, p. 3).